The trio in October 2010 tried to trump up drunken-driving charges against him in retaliation for an incident involving North Catasauqua Councilman William McGinley, the suit says. McGinley was charged in a Catasauqua hit-and-run crash; Moyer asked Wittik and another officer, Arthur D. Williams III, to drop the charges and they refused, the suit says.

The Lehigh County District Attorney's Office ultimately withdrew charges against McGinley, the suit says.

More information about the Aug. 24, 2008 incident that prompted charges was not immediately available, but court records show McGinley pleaded guilty Nov. 18, 2008 to failure to stop and give information or render aid, a summary offense, in connection with the incident. A careless driving charge stemming from the same incident was withdrawn, records show.

McGinley said Thursday he was falsely accused. "I don't know why it was even brought up in the suit because it had nothing to do with anything, he said.

The councilman said Wittik's accusations against Molchany, Moyer and Litz are false, as well.

Timothy Varga, the North Catasauqua police officer who stopped Wittik in October 2010 but did not pursue charges against him, was fired in December 2010 over how he handled the incident. Varga returned to work after an arbitrator in June 2011 ruled the borough did not have sufficient cause to dismiss him.

McGinley said the borough was right to fire Varga, who erred when he didn't perform field sobriety tests on Wittik. Now, because two police officers behaved badly, the taxpayers of North Catasauqua are going to be saddled with legal expenses associated with Wittik's suit, the councilman said.

"You got a cop who didn't do his duty, you got a cop who was apparently driving drunk and got away with it," he said.

Moyer, who is on medical leave after sustaining an off-duty injury, did not return calls for comment Thursday. Molchany and North Catasauqua solicitor, William J. McCarthy III, declined comment because they had not yet reviewed the suit. Litz could not be reached for comment.

Moyer, according to the suit, has also tried to "bully" Wittik into dropping charges against his other "friends and political cronies." He "despises" Wittik and is "determined to do everything in his power to destroy the plaintiff's career as a police officer."

The chief is alleged to have enlisted Litz's help in his personal vendetta against Wittik. Molchany, who oversees the North Catasauqua Police Department, played a role in the scheme, too, the suit says.

"Moyer knew that if the plaintiff were to be arrested for drunk driving along with fleeing and attempting to elude police, it would cause him to be terminated from his position with the borough of Catasauqua," the suit says.

Wittik claims he's lost wages, suffered emotional distress and damage to his reputation because of the defendants' actions. He wants a jury trial and is suing for compensatory and punitive damages, as well as his attorney's fees.

Varga on Oct. 2, 2010, followed a vehicle Wittik was driving south on Howertown Road in North Catasauqua, the suit says. The vehicle stopped at the Catasauqua Police Department, where Varga spoke with Wittik and no arrest was made, the suit says.

Moyer and the other defendants later alleged Wittik was speeding in a 25-mph zone, running stop signs and driving like someone under the influence of alcohol or drugs as he led Varga on a four-minute chase, the suit says.

Varga was fired because the defendants claim he turned off his dashboard camera during the traffic stop and did not conduct breath or field sobriety tests once he realized Wittik was behind the wheel, the suit says. The reasons for Varga's dismissal are outlined in a letter mailed to him by the borough, the suit says.

Moyer was not present at the traffic stop, but viewed video recorded as Varga followed Wittik and spoke with Litz about the incident, the suit says.

Litz, at the arbitration hearing for Varga, testified that Wittik was argumentative, smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes during the stop, the suit says.

Litz was "carrying out the bidding of his two superiors ... in order to advance his owner career interest notwithstanding the illegality of his actions" with his testimony, the suit says.

Other officers present during the stop refuted Litz's testimony at the hearing, according to the arbitrator's report.

Wittik was subpoenaed to testify at the arbitration hearing. The subpoena, he claims in the suit, was a "thinly disguised effort by the defendants to further intimidate and incriminate him."